A shifting terrain: Understanding the perspectives of walk-in physicians on their roles amid worsening primary care access in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: High-quality primary care is associated with better health outcomes and more efficient and equitable health system performance. However, the rate of primary care attachment is falling, and timely access to primary care is worsening, driving many patients to use walk-in clinics for their comprehensive primary care needs. This study sought to explore the experiences and perceived roles and responsibilities of walk-in physicians in this current climate. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with nineteen physicians currently providing walk-in care in Ontario, Canada between May and December 2022. RESULTS: Limited capacity for continuity and comprehensiveness of care were identified as major sources of professional tension for walk-in physicians. Divergent perspectives on their roles were anchored in how physicians viewed their professional identity. Some saw providing continuous and comprehensive care as an infringement on their professional role; others saw their professional role as more flexible and responsive to population needs. Regardless of their professional identity, participants reported feeling ill-equipped to manage the swell of unattached patients, citing a lack of time, resources, connectivity to the system, and remuneration flexibility. Conclusions: As practice demands of walk-in clinics change, an evolution in the professional roles and responsibilities of walk-in physicians follows. However, the resources, structure, and incentives of walk-in care have not evolved to reflect this, leaving physicians to set their own professional boundaries with patients. This results in increasing variations in care and confusion across the primary care sector around who is responsible for what, when, and how.

Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Studies for Health Technology Management: Outcomes and Lessons Learned by the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration.

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a value assessment tool designed to help support complex decision-making by incorporating multiple factors and perspectives in a transparent, structured approach. We developed an MCDA rating tool, consisting of seven criteria evaluating the importance and feasibility of conducting potential real-world evidence (RWE) studies aimed at addressing uncertainties stemming from initial cancer drug funding recommendations. In collaboration with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health's Provincial Advisory Group, a validation exercise was conducted to further evaluate the application of the rating tool using RWE proposals varying in complexity. Through this exercise, we aimed to gain insight into consensus building and deliberation processes and to identify efficiencies in the application of the rating tool. An experienced facilitator led a multidisciplinary committee, consisting of 11 Canadian experts, through consensus building, deliberation, and prioritization. A total of nine RWE proposals were evaluated and prioritized as low (n = 4), medium (n = 3), or high (n = 2) priority. Through an iterative process, efficiencies and recommendations to improve the rating tool and associated procedures were identified. The refined MCDA rating tool can help decision-makers prioritize important and feasible RWE studies for research and can enable the use of RWE for the life-cycle evaluation of cancer drugs.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2024.

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2024 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2024 were reviewed-including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, endocrine drugs, generics, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2024 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2023, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the US grew 13.6% compared to 2022, for a total of $722.5 billion. Utilization (a 6.5% increase), new drugs (a 4.2% increase) and price (a 2.9% increase) drove this increase. Semaglutide was the top drug in 2023, followed by adalimumab and apixaban. Drug expenditures were $37.1 billion (a 1.1% decrease) and $135.7 billion (a 15.0% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, increased utilization drove growth, with a small impact from price and new products. In nonfederal hospitals, a drop in utilization led the decrease in expenditures, with price and new drugs modestly contributing to growth in spending. Several new drugs that will influence spending are expected to be approved in 2024. Specialty, endocrine, and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures. CONCLUSION: For 2024, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 10.0% to 12.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate an 11.0% to 13.0% increase and a 0% to 2.0% increase, respectively, compared to 2023. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

Cost-effectiveness of the top 100 drugs by public spending in Canada, 2015-2021: a repeated cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the distribution and spending by cost-effectiveness category among those drugs with the highest public spending levels in Canada. DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional study. SETTING: The Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness assessments by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) for top-100 brand-name outpatient drugs by gross public plan spending in any year between 2015 and 2021 in Canada Institute for Health Information's National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System data. Gross public plan spending by cost-effectiveness category. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2021, 152 brand-name drugs occupied a top-100 rank and were included in the analysis. Of those, 117 had been assessed by CADTH. During the 7-year period, there was an increase in both top-100 drugs with cost-effective (from 18 to 24) and cost-ineffective (from 29 to 41) assessments, while drugs not assessed or with an unclear assessment declined (from 31 to 19 and from 22 to 16, respectively). As a share of spending on top-100 drugs with an assessment, spending on cost-effective drugs was mostly stable at 40%-46% from 2015 to 2021, while spending on cost-ineffective drugs increased from 30% to 45%. CONCLUSION: A large and growing share of public drug spending has been allocated to cost-ineffective drugs in Canada. Dedicating large budgets to such treatments prevents spending with greater health impact elsewhere in the healthcare system and could restrain the capacity to pay for groundbreaking pharmaceutical innovation in the future.

Effects of the valsartan recall on heart failure patients: A nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Valsartan is commonly used for cardiac conditions. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration recalled generic valsartan due to the detection of impurities. Our objective was to determine if heart failure patients receiving valsartan at the recall date had a greater likelihood of unfavorable outcomes than patients using comparable antihypertensives. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Datamart (July 2017-January 2019). Heart failure patients with commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance who received valsartan were compared to persons who received non-recalled angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin converting enzyme-inhibitors (ACE-Is) for 1 year prior and including the recall date. Outcomes included a composite for all-cause hospitalization, emergency department (ED), and urgent care (UC) use and a measure of cardiac events which included hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction and hospitalizations/ED/UC visits for stroke/transient ischemic attack, heart failure or hypertension at 6-months post-recall. Cox proportional hazard models with propensity score weighting compared the risk of outcomes between groups. RESULTS: Of the 87 130 adherent patients, 15% were valsartan users and 85% were users of non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Valsartan use was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause hospitalization/ED/UC use six-months post-recall (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.96-1.03), compared with individuals taking non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Similarly, cardiac events 6-months post-recall did not differ between individuals on valsartan and non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.97-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: The valsartan recall did not affect short-term outcomes of heart failure patients. However, the recall potentially disrupted the medication regimens of patients, possibly straining the healthcare system.

Trends in Phenylephrine and Pseudoephedrine Sales in the US.

This study examines purchasing patterns regarding oral decongestants, concerns about their efficacy, and the need for timelier postmarket evaluation.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on prescription drug use and costs in British Columbia: a retrospective interrupted time series study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on prescription drug use and costs. DESIGN: Interrupted time series analysis of comprehensive administrative health data linkages in British Columbia, Canada, from 1 January 2018 to 28 March 2021. SETTING: Retrospective population-based analysis of all prescription drugs dispensed in community pharmacies and outpatient hospital pharmacies and irrespective of the drug insurance payer. PARTICIPANTS: Between 4.30 and 4.37 million individuals (52% women) actively registered with the publicly funded medical services plan. INTERVENTION: COVID-19 pandemic and associated mitigation measures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Weekly dispensing rates and costs, both overall and stratified by therapeutic groups and pharmacological subgroups, before and after the declaration of the public health emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Relative changes in post-COVID-19 outcomes were expressed as ratios of observed to expected rates. RESULTS: After the onset of the pandemic and subsequent COVID-19 mitigation measures, overall medication dispensing rates dropped by 2.4% (p<0.01), followed by a sustained weekly increase to return to predicted levels by the end of January 2021. We observed abrupt level decreases in antibacterials (30.3%, p<0.01) and antivirals (22.4%, p<0.01) that remained below counterfactuals over the first year of the pandemic. In contrast, there was a week-to-week trend increase in nervous system drugs, yielding an overall increase of 7.3% (p<0.01). No trend changes in the dispensing of respiratory system agents, ACE inhibitors, antidiabetic drugs and antidepressants were detected. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic impact on prescription drug dispensing was heterogeneous across medication subgroups. As data become available, dispensing trends in nervous system agents, antibiotics and antivirals warrant further monitoring and investigation.

Canadian trends in spending on liver hospitalizations and transplants: 2004-2020.

Background: The incidence and prevalence of liver disease are increasing and contribute to significant morbidity and mortality. In Canada, more than 3 million people live with liver diseases, accounting for approximately 2% of all hospitalizations. However, it remains unclear how much liver hospitalizations cost the Canadian health care system. Thus, this study estimates the cost of liver-related hospitalization across Canada. Methods: We conducted a population-based, retrospective study using acute inpatient admission data for liver-related hospitalizations obtained from the Canadian Institute for Health Information. We calculated the total and the average nominal spending for liver hospitalizations nationally from April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2020, based on fiscal year (FY). In addition, we stratified the average liver hospitalization spending based on age and sex group. Results: Canada spent $947 million on liver-related hospitalizations in FY2019, a 145% growth in spending from FY2004. The average liver disease-related hospitalization was estimated to be $17,506 in FY2019. Within the sub-group analysis, the age group <30 showed the highest average cost per hospitalization at $21,776; however, there was no significant difference in cost between males and females. Across the different provinces in FY2019, Alberta experienced the highest average spending per hospitalization at $23,150, whereas Ontario had the lowest spending at $15,712. Conclusions: Liver-related hospitalizations are associated with high spending that is increasing nationally with variations across provinces and territories. Our results are of great use for economic evaluations of novel interventions in the future.

Prevalence and nature of manufacturer-sponsored patient support programs for prescription drugs in Canada: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Globally, pharmaceutical companies offer patient support programs in tandem with their products, which aim to enhance medication adherence and patient experience through education, training, support and financial assistance. We sought to identify the proportion and characteristics of such patient support programs in Canada and to describe the nature of supports provided. METHODS: We conducted a crosssectional study to identify and characterize all marketed prescription drugs available in Canada as of Aug. 23, 2022, using the Health Canada Drug Product and CompuScript databases. To describe the nature of supports provided, we conducted a content analysis of publicly available patient support program websites and Web-based documents. Using logistic regression, we identified characteristics of drugs associated with having a patient support program including brand-name or branded generic (generic medications with a proprietary name), orphan (medications for rare diseases) or biologic drug status; estimated total cost of prescriptions dispensed at retail pharmacies; and price per unit. RESULTS: Of the 2556 prescription drugs marketed by 89 companies in the study period, 256 (10.0%) had a patient support program in Canada. Many of the 89 drug manufacturers (n = 55, 61.8%) offered at least 1 patient support program, frequently relying on third-party administrators for delivery. Brandname and branded generic medications, biologic agents and drugs with orphan status were more likely to have a patient support program than generic drugs. Compared with drugs priced $1.01-$10.00 per unit, drugs priced $10.01-$100.00 per unit were nearly 8 times more likely to have a patient support program (adjusted odds ratio 7.54, 95% confidence interval 4.07- 14.64). Most sampled patient support programs included reimbursement navigation (n = 231, 90.2%) and clinical case management (n = 223, 87.1%). INTERPRETATION: About 1 in 10 drugs marketed in Canada has a manufacturersponsored patient support program, but these are concentrated around brand-name, branded generic, biologic and high-cost drugs, often for rare diseases. To understand the impact of patient support programs on health outcomes and sustainable access to cost-effective medicines, greater transparency and independent evaluation of patient support programs is necessary.

Integration of real-world evidence from different data sources in health technology assessment.

Real-world evidence (RWE) is being increasingly used by a wide range of stakeholders involved in the therapeutic product lifecycle but remains underutilized in the health technology assessment (HTA) process. RWE aims to fill the current evidence gaps, reduce the uncertainty around the benefits of medical technologies, and better understand the long-term impact of health technologies in real-world conditions. Despite the minimal use of RWE in some elements of HTA, there has been a larger push to further utilize RWE in the HTA processes. HTA bodies, as other stakeholders, work towards developing more robust means to leverage RWE from various data sources in the HTA processes. However, these agencies need to overcome important challenges before the broader incorporation of RWE into their routine practice. This paper aims to explore the extensive integration of RWE utilizing diverse sources of RWD. We discuss the utilization of RWE in HTA processes, considering aspects such as when, where, and how RWE can be effectively applied. Additionally, we seek the potential challenges and barriers associated with the utilization of different data sources.

A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Inhibitors in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC).

BACKGROUND: The anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor treatment landscape is rapidly evolving, providing patients with ALK-positive (+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with multiple therapy options, multiple lines of treatments, and prolonged survival. However, these recent treatment advances have resulted in additional increases in treatment costs. The objective of this article is to review the economic evidence of ALK inhibitors in patients with ALK+ NSCLC. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) systematic reviews of economic evaluation. The population included adult patients with locally advanced (stage IIIb/c) or metastatic (stage IV) NSCLC cancer with confirmed ALK fusions. The interventions included the ALK inhibitors alectinib, brigatinib, ceritinib, crizotinib, ensartinib, or lorlatinib. The comparators included the listed ALK inhibitors, chemotherapy, or best supportive care. The review considered cost-effectiveness analysis studies (CEAs) that reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in quality-adjusted life years and/or in life years gained. Published literature was searched in Medline (via Ovid) by 4 January 2023, in Embase (via Ovid) by 4 January 2023, in International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (via Ovid) by 4 January 2023, and in Cochrane library (via Wiley) by 11 January 2023. Preliminary screening of titles and abstracts was conducted against the inclusion criteria by two independent researchers followed by a full text of selected citations. Search results are presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. Critical appraisal was conducted using the validated Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS) tool as well as the Phillips et al. 2004 appraisal tool to assess the reporting and quality of the economic evaluations. Data were extracted from the final set of articles and presented in a table of characteristics of included studies, an overview of study methods of included studies, and a summarization of outcomes of included studies. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies met all inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies were in the first-line treatment setting (n = 15). Included CEAs varied in the interventions and comparators being evaluated and were conducted from different country perspectives, limiting their comparability. Outcomes from the included CEAs showed that ALK inhibitors may be considered a cost-effective treatment option for patients with ALK+ NSCLC in the first-line and subsequent lines of treatment setting. However, the probability of cost effectiveness of ALK inhibitors ranged from 46 to 100% and were mostly achieved at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100,000 USD or higher (> $30,000 or higher in China) in the first-line treatment setting and at thresholds of $50,000 USD or higher in subsequent lines of treatment setting. The number of published full-text CEAs is low and the studies represent a handful of country perspectives. The source of survival data was dependent on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Where RCT data were not available, indirect treatment comparisons or matched adjusted indirect comparisons were performed using efficacy data from different clinical studies. Real world evidence was rarely used for efficacy and costing data inputs. CONCLUSION: The findings summarized available evidence on cost effectiveness of ALK inhibitors for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK+ NSCLC across lines of treatment settings and generated a valuable overview of analytical approaches utilized to support future economic analyses. To help further inform treatment and policy decisions, this review emphasizes the need for comparative cost effectiveness of multiple ALK inhibitors simultaneously using real-world data sources with broad representation of settings.

Development of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Rating Tool to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Questions for the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration.

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration developed an MCDA rating tool to assess and prioritize potential post-market real-world evidence (RWE) questions/uncertainties emerging from public drug funding decisions in Canada. In collaboration with a group of multidisciplinary stakeholders from across Canada, the rating tool was developed following a three-step process: (1) selection of criteria to assess the importance and feasibility of an RWE question; (2) development of rating scales, application of weights and calculating aggregate scores; and (3) validation testing. An initial MCDA rating tool was developed, composed of seven criteria, divided into two groups. Group A criteria assess the importance of an RWE question by examining the (1) drug's perceived clinical benefit, (2) magnitude of uncertainty identified, and (3) relevance of the uncertainty to decision-makers. Group B criteria assess the feasibility of conducting an RWE analysis including the (1) feasibility of identifying a comparator, (2) ability to identify cases, (3) availability of comprehensive data, and (4) availability of necessary expertise and methodology. Future directions include partnering with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health's Provincial Advisory Group for further tool refinement and to gain insight into incorporating the tool into drug funding deliberations.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2023.

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2023 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2023 were reviewed, including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, diabetes medications, generics, COVID-19 pandemic influence, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2023 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2022, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the US grew 9.4% compared to 2021, for a total of $633.5 billion. Utilization (a 5.9% increase), price (a 1.7% increase) and new drugs (a 1.8% increase) drove this increase. Adalimumab was the top-selling drug in 2022, followed by semaglutide and apixaban. Drug expenditures were $37.2 billion (a 5.9% decrease) and $116.9 billion (a 10.4% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, new products and increased utilization growth drove growth, with a small impact from price changes. In nonfederal hospitals, a drop in utilization led to a decrease in expenditures, with price changes and new drugs contributing to growth in spending. Several new drugs that will influence spending have been or are expected to be approved in 2023. Specialty and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures along with the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: For 2023, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 6.0% to 8.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 8.0% to 10.0% and 1.0% to 3.0%, respectively, compared to 2022. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any particular health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

Global trends in antidepressant, atypical antipsychotic, and benzodiazepine use: A cross-sectional analysis of 64 countries.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the trends in use of antidepressants (ADs), atypical antipsychotics (AAPs), and benzodiazepines (BZDs) among high-, middle-, and low-income countries. METHODS: A cross-sectional time-series analysis by country from July 2014 to December 2019 utilizing IQVIA's Multinational Integrated Data Analysis database was conducted. Population-controlled rates of use were calculated in number of standard units of medications per drug class per population size. The United Nations' 2020 World Economic Situation and Prospects was used to group countries into high-, middle-, and low-income. Percent change in rates of use per drug class was calculated from July 2014 to July 2019. Linear regression analyses were conducted to assess the predictability of percent change in use utilizing a country's baseline rate of use per drug class and economic status as predictor variables. RESULTS: A total of 64 countries were included: 33 high-, 6 middle-, and 25 low-income. Average baseline rates of use for ADs in high-, middle-, and low-income countries were 2.15, 0.35, and 0.38 standard units per population size, respectively. For AAPs, rates were 0.69, 0.15, and 0.13, respectively. For BZDs, rates were 1.66, 1.46, and 0.33, respectively. Average percent changes in use for ADs by economic status were 20%, 69%, and 42%, respectively. For AAPs, they were 27%, 78%, and 69%, respectively. For BZDs, they were -13%, 4%, and -5%, respectively. Some associations were found demonstrating that as a country's economic status increases, percent change of AD (p = 0.916), AAP (p = 0.23), and BZD (p = 0.027) use decreases. Similarly, as baseline rate of use for ADs and AAPs increases, percent change in use decreases with p-values of 0.026 and 0.054, respectively. For BZDs, as baseline rate of use increases, percent change in use increases (p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: High-income countries have a higher rate of treatment utilization compared to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with treatment utilization increasing in all countries of interest.

Geographic variation and sociodemographic correlates of prescription psychotropic drug use among children and youth in Ontario, Canada: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Population-based research examining geographic variability in psychotropic medication dispensing to children and youth and the sociodemographic correlates of such variation is lacking. Variation in psychotropic use could reflect disparities in access to non-pharmacologic interventions and identify potentially concerning use patterns. METHODS: We conducted a population-based study of all Ontario residents aged 0 to 24 years who were dispensed a benzodiazepine, stimulant, antipsychotic or antidepressant between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018. We conducted small-area variation analyses and identified determinants of dispensing using negative binomial generalized estimating equation models. RESULTS: The age- and sex-standardized rate of psychotropic dispensing to children and youth was 76.8 (range 41.7 to 144.4) prescriptions per 1000 population, with large variation in psychotropic dispensing across Ontario's census divisions. Males had higher antipsychotic [rate ratio (RR) 1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 1.44) and stimulant (RR 1.75; 95% CI 1.70 to 1.80) dispensing rates relative to females, with less use of benzodiazepines (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.83 to 0.88) and antidepressants (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.82). Lower antipsychotic dispensing was observed in the highest income neighbourhoods (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.75) relative to the lowest. Benzodiazepine (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.24) and stimulant (RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23) dispensing increased with the density of mental health services in census divisions, whereas antipsychotic use decreased (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.91). The regional density of child and adolescent psychiatrists and developmental pediatricians (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.01) was not associated with psychotropic dispensing. CONCLUSION: We found significant variation in psychotropic dispensing among young Ontarians. Targeted investment in regions with long wait times for publicly-funded non-pharmacological interventions and novel collaborative service models may minimize variability and promote best practices in using psychotropics among children and youth.

Engaging Patients in the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value in Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Initiative: Processes and Lessons Learned.

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value in Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration established the Engagement Working Group (WG) to ensure that all key stakeholders had an opportunity to provide input into the development and implementation of the CanREValue Real-World Evidence (RWE) Framework. Two consultations were held in 2021 to solicit patient perspectives on key policy and data access issues identified in the interim policy and data WG reports. Over 30 individuals, representing patients, caregivers, advocacy leaders, and individuals engaged in patient research were invited to participate. The consultations provided important feedback and valuable lessons in patient engagement. Patient leaders actively shaped the process and content of the consultation. Breakout groups facilitated by patient advocacy leaders gave the opportunity for open and thoughtful contributions from all participants. Important recommendations were made: the RWE framework should not impede access to new drugs; it should be used to support conditional approvals; patient relevant endpoints should be captured in provincial datasets; access to data to conduct RWE should be improved; and privacy issues must be considered. The manuscript documents the CanREValue experience of engaging patients in a consultative process and the useful contributions that can be achieved when the processes to engage are guided by patients themselves.

Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel vs FOLFIRINOX in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are no randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (Gem-Nab) and fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan, oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). Although it is well known that RCT-based efficacy often does not translate to real-world effectiveness, there is limited literature investigating comparative cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC. We aimed to examine the real-world cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: This study compared patients treated with first-line Gem-Nab or FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario from April 2015 to March 2019. Patients were linked to administrative databases. Using propensity scores and a stabilizing weights method, an inverse probability of treatment weighted cohort was developed. Mean survival and total costs were calculated over a 5-year time horizon, adjusted for censoring, and discounted at 1.5%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit were computed to estimate cost-effectiveness from the public health-care payer's perspective. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the propensity score matching method. RESULTS: A total of 1988 patients were identified (Gem-Nab: n = 928; FOLFIRINOX: n = 1060). Mean survival was lower for patients in the Gem-Nab than the FOLFIRINOX group (0.98 vs 1.26 life-years; incremental effectiveness = -0.28 life-years [95% confidence interval = -0.47 to -0.13]). Patients in the Gem-Nab group incurred greater mean 5-year total costs (Gem-Nab: $103 884; FOLFIRINOX: $101 518). Key cost contributors include ambulatory cancer care, acute inpatient hospitalization, and systemic therapy drug acquisition. Gem-Nab was dominated by FOLFIRINOX, as it was less effective and more costly. Results from the sensitivity analysis were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Gem-Nab is likely more costly and less effective than FOLFIRINOX and therefore not considered cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.

COVID-19 and the prevalence of drug shortages in Canada: a cross-sectional time-series analysis from April 2017 to April 2022.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the Government of Canada introduced measures to reduce intensifying shortages of prescription drugs during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to assess the extent to which a decline in drug shortages was observed in the months after this policy change. METHODS: Our data source was the Drug Shortages Canada Database, which reports shortages by drug product, including shortage start and duration. Using a cross-sectional design, we tracked shortage rates of drug products using a 30-day moving average from Apr. 15, 2017, to Apr. 1, 2022. We used autoregressive integrated moving average modelling with a ramp function to determine the significance of trend changes after policy implementation. RESULTS: We found that of the 13 329 drug products at risk for shortage, 44.7% (n = 5953) had at least 1 shortage event in the past 5 years. Average daily shortage prevalence rates rose from 901 in April 2017 to a peak of 2345 by April 2020. Significant declines (p = 0.02) ensued shortly thereafter, dropping to a rate of 1611 shortages by the end of the first year after policy implementation. However, we did not observe a significant reduction in shortage rates in the second year (p = 0.2), with rates plateauing below 1500 and then rising back above 1600 by the end of March 2022. INTERPRETATION: Drug shortages are common in Canada, including during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We observed substantial improvements after the implementation of the new measures, but gains appear to have plateaued. Continued vigilance is needed to sustain improvements.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2022.

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2022 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2022 were reviewed-including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, generics, COVID-19 pandemic influence, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2022 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2021, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the US grew 7.7% compared to 2020, for a total of $576.9 billion. Utilization (a 4.8% increase), price (a 1.9% increase) and new drugs (a 1.1% increase) drove this increase. Adalimumab was the top drug in terms of overall expenditures in 2021, followed by apixaban and dulaglutide. Drug expenditures were $39.6 billion (a 8.4% increase) and $105.0 billion (a 7.7% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and in clinics, respectively. In clinics and hospitals, new products and increased utilization growth drove growth, with decreasing prices for both sectors acting as an expense restraint. Several new drugs that are likely to influence spending are expected to be approved in 2022. Specialty and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures along with the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: For 2022, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 4.0% to 6.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 7.0% to 9.0% and 3.0% to 5.0%, respectively, compared to 2021. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any particular health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.